Planned power outages across the state of California left over 2 million people in the dark last month. The blackouts, which were planned by Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and Southern California Edison (SCE), were meant to reduce the risk of wildfires as high winds blew through the state. As every Californian knows from last year’s Camp Fire, broken power lines, dry fall weather, and strong winds are a recipe for deadly disasters.

While this response is a guaranteed way to prevent powerlines from causing fires – a powerline with no electricity is nothing more than a bundle of wires – it comes at an incredibly high cost. Some estimates put the economic loss at over $2 billion. More than 320 schools had to cancel classes, keeping nearly a quarter-million children out of school. Not to mention, nearly 250 hospitals were forced to run off of generators.

The backlash against PG&E and SCE has been fierce, but California should not use them as a scapegoat for the state’s more significant wildfire problems. After all, despite the outages, multiple fires still sprung up around the state over the weekend. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has recorded 16 fires that began since the outages were implemented starting Oct 9th. Most are contained, although the Saddleridge fire burning near LA remains only about halfway contained and has burned close to 9,000 acres.

Utilities are not without blame here – the Saddleridge fire was potentially caused by SCE lines still carrying electricity – but it is nearly impossible to predict when, where, or how wildfires will begin. The most lethal recent fire was not caused by power lines but when a dump truck’s load caught fire, and the driver dumped it on the side of the road. The resulting fire killed one individual and burned nearly 100 structures.

Blaming the utility companies is not going to fix the wildfire problem. PG&E and SCE should be held liable for the damages they cause, especially when they are a result of negligence in upkeep, but politics in California are also to blame here. As part of PG&E’s bankruptcy filing earlier this year, a judge ordered PG&E to inspect and clear trees from their nearly 100,000 miles of overhead powerlines. PG&E estimated the cost to be between $75 and $150 billion.

A court ruling in June would have allowed PG&E to renegotiate or cancel $42 billion of renewable projects which would have freed up money to use towards improving powerline safety, but state legislators and policymakers pressured them not to in order to meet the state’s renewable energy goals. The alternative? Turn off the power when the wind starts blowing. However, allowing utilities to shut off power is not wildfire prevention, it is procrastination.

The state’s top priority when it comes to wildfires should be to prevent them from happening in the first place. Upkeep of the electric grid is essential, but so is improving the tools fire managers have to prevent wildfires before they begin.

It turns out that the best tool to prevent fire is fire. Prescribed fires, which are conducted by fire experts in controlled environments, are regarded as one of the best ways of reducing wildfire risk. They also provide numerous ecological benefits for fire-prone landscapes.

The process of securing a permit to conduct a prescribed burn, however, is arduous and lengthy. It can, at times take years to clear federal and state-level regulations relating to environmental impacts and air quality standards.

Governors Brown and Newsom have both worked to increase state budgets for prescribed burns in recent years, but efforts need to be made to reduce regulatory burdens. Ten to fifteen years is too long to wait to implement prescribed burn projects. Shorter application times will also mean lower costs, helping to stretch those budgets further.

Prescribed fires have been effectively utilized in the Southeast for decades. In 2017, for example, Florida treated over 2 million acres with prescribed fires. California managed to treat just under 50,000 acres that same year.

Western states, however, are starting to catch on. Oregon recently reduced limitations on air quality standards, recognizing the value prescribed burns can create through risk reduction. California should take similar steps to improve catastrophic wildfire prevention in the state. The debate is no longer whether or not fires will burn, it’s whether or not fires will burn on our terms.

Brian Isom is a research manager at the Center for Growth and Opportunity at Utah State University, where he focuses on issues related to energy production and wildfire management.

Join the Conversation

We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community. Although we do not pre-screen comments, we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions.

If you see comments that you find offensive, please use the “Flag as Inappropriate” feature by hovering over the right side of the post, and pulling down on the arrow that appears. Or, contact our editors by emailing moderator@scng.com.